James K. A. Hayes

The applicant union applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business from Shiffer-Hillman Company Limited to the respondent, 529592 Ontario Limited.

The predecessor company went into receivership, and its former vice-president incorporated the respondent to purchase assets, including the trade name, patterns, and some inventory, from the receiver.

The respondent operated from the same location, used the same telephone number, and employed several former employees, though it contracted out manufacturing and sold directly to the public.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a part of a business, as the respondent acquired essential components, notably the location and goodwill associated with the trade name, to carry on a restructured version of the predecessor's business.

The respondent was declared bound by the collective agreement.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights at the first open period following a difficult strike and first collective agreement.

The union argued the employee petition was not voluntary due to the applicant's perceived proximity to management, the open gathering of signatures at the plant gates, and prior management statements.

The majority of the Board found the petition was a voluntary expression of employee wishes, noting the applicant was not in a supervisory role and the context of the recent strike diminished concerns about secrecy.

A representation vote was ordered.

One Board member dissented, finding the petition was tainted by management involvement and the overall environment.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervener employees' association and the respondent employer argued the application was untimely due to a pre-existing collective agreement between them.

The Board found that the employer had provided substantial support to a predecessor workers' committee, which tainted the intervener association.

Consequently, under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, the agreement was deemed not to be a valid collective agreement, and under section 13, the Board was precluded from certifying the intervener.

The intervener's application for certification was dismissed, and the applicant's certification application was referred for continuation of hearing.

The complainants, several local unions and their business representatives, alleged that the respondent International union committed an unfair labour practice by placing the Ontario District Council under trusteeship.

The complainants argued the trusteeship was a reprisal for their filing of a previous section 89 complaint (the 'EPSCA complaint') against the International.

The Board found that while there were legitimate concerns about the Council's financial practices, the International's decision to impose the trusteeship was motivated at least in part by a desire to penalize the complainants and impede their prosecution of the EPSCA complaint.

The Board held this violated section 80(2) of the Labour Relations Act and ordered the International to cease exercising control in a manner that would interfere with the EPSCA complaint.

The complainant employer sought an interim order and a cease and desist order regarding a work assignment dispute between two unions over the off-loading of piping equipment.

The employer had assigned the work to the U.A. Local 463 after the Ironworkers Local 721 allegedly refused to perform work on the site.

The Ironworkers requested the Board to change the assignment.

The Board applied its established jurisprudence that an employer's assignment will be continued unless patently wrong.

Finding the assignment was made after representations from both unions, the Board directed the employer to continue assigning the work to U.A. Local 463 pending a final resolution.

The Board determined the appropriate measure and period of entitlement for monetary losses arising from the respondent's bad faith bargaining.

The Board held that the period of entitlement ran from April 1, 1980, to December 3, 1980.

For the period between April 1 and June 17, 1980, damages were limited to the net monetary claim, reflecting the difference between what employees would have received had they continued to work and the 9% increase that would have resulted from good faith bargaining.

From June 18 to December 3, 1980, striking employees were entitled to their gross monetary claim.

The Board also ruled that grievors were obligated to mitigate their losses after February 13, 1981.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint an arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The trade union argued that the expedited arbitration procedure was only available to the grieving party, while the employer argued it was available to either party.

The Board held that the clear language of section 45(1) allows either party to a collective agreement to request the Minister to refer a difference to a single arbitrator.

The Board advised the Minister that he has the authority to appoint an arbitrator upon the request of either the trade union or the employer.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by intimidating and coercing employees during a strike vote and a ratification vote, and sought to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board found no evidence of intimidation or coercion, noting that the union's timing of the votes to protect its bargaining rights was a reasonable business practice.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint and subsequently dismissed the application for termination of bargaining rights as untimely due to the existence of a valid collective agreement.

In an application for certification, the respondent employer alleged that an employee signed a union membership card but failed to pay the required $1.00 initiation fee.

The Board heard evidence from the employee, the collector, and other witnesses.

The majority of the Board found that the employee did not pay the $1.00 and that the collector had misled the union official who signed the Form 9 declaration.

Consequently, the Board declined to give any weight to the 20 membership cards collected by that individual.

The Board reserved its decision on whether to apply section 8 of the Act until the unfair labour practice allegations were heard.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and filed membership evidence for over 55% of the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire (petition) opposing the union, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union cards.

The union argued the petition was not voluntary because the employer had announced new written policies and benefits shortly after receiving notice of the certification application, allegedly violating the statutory freeze.

The majority of the Board found that the employer's actions were part of an ongoing process and did not unduly influence the employees, concluding the petition was voluntary and directing a representation vote.

A dissenting Board member found the employer's actions violated the statutory freeze and unlawfully interfered with the employees' choice.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer closed its egg grading business and sold it to a newly formed company to evade its collective bargaining obligations.

The union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred and that its bargaining rights bound the new company, as well as remedies for unfair labour practices.

The Board found that a sale of business had occurred, but that the union's bargaining rights did not extend to the new company's location.

The Board also found that the plant closure was economically motivated and not an unfair labour practice.

However, the Board concluded that the new company unlawfully refused to hire several former employees because of their suspected union activity, and that the predecessor employer unlawfully discharged a key union organizer.

The Board ordered reinstatement and compensation for the affected employees.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent employers engaged in a series of corporate reorganizations and contracting-out arrangements designed to defeat the union's bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employers violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off unionized employees and transferring their work to other entities to avoid collective bargaining obligations.

The Board also found that the primary employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including the reinstatement of the affected employees with back pay and a direction to commence collective bargaining.

Applications for a declaration of a sale of a business and for consent to prosecute were dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by refusing to allow striking employees to return to work following a Board order.

The employer claimed the employees had engaged in a mass resignation by walking out of a training session and failing to provide notice of absence.

The Board found that the employer's strict application of its absence policy lacked a credible business justification and was motivated by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the affected employees with compensation.

The applicant unions sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited (F.S.S.) and Ferro Erectors (Toronto) Limited (F.E.) constituted one employer, thereby binding F.S.S. to a province-wide collective agreement.

While the Board found the companies were under common control and direction, it declined to exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.

The Board held that the union knew or ought to have known for many years that F.S.S. was not bound by the agreement and was sub-contracting to non-union erectors, yet failed to act with sufficient dispatch to protect its bargaining rights.

The union applied for certification for employees of Bright Veal Meat Packers Ltd. The employer requested that the Board apply section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to treat Bright Veal and Globe Wholesale Meats Inc. as one employer, arguing they were associated businesses under common control.

The Board found comprehensive integration and significant intermingling of employees between the two operations.

The Board declared the two companies to be one employer to prevent undue fragmentation of bargaining rights.

As the union did not have sufficient membership support in the combined bargaining unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to bargain in good faith.

After the union accepted the employer's contract offer, the employer insisted on a joint request to the Minister of Labour for an employee ratification vote under section 34d of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer's insistence on a ratification vote after the union had accepted the offer was an unlawful attempt to bypass the exclusive bargaining agent and deal directly with employees.

The Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreements and compensate employees for lost opportunity.

The employer requested a final offer vote under section 34e of the Labour Relations Act during a strike.

A majority of employees voted to accept the offer, but the trade union refused to sign the collective agreement, arguing the vote was merely an opinion poll and that the employer's pre-vote communications, which included a reference to a possible plant closure, constituted unlawful coercion.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a section 34e vote in favour of an offer creates a binding basis for a collective agreement in the usual case.

The Board found the employer's statements were reasonable predictions based on bargaining reality rather than unlawful threats.

The trade union was directed to execute the collective agreement.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a first collective agreement.

After a lengthy strike, the employer withdrew its monetary proposals shortly after the introduction of legislation mandating dues check-off, which had been the main issue in dispute.

The Board found that the employer's withdrawal of the offer and its rigid position on union security were aimed at avoiding a collective agreement, violating section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to table its previous offer and directed the reinstatement of striking employees who make an unconditional application to return to work.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer's foreman interfered with the union's administration by soliciting employees to revoke their union membership and dues check-off.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the foreman initiated discussions and used promises of protection to encourage revocations, which constituted a violation of section 56 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, compensate the union for lost dues from one employee whose revocation was directly caused by the foreman, and post a notice of the decision.

The respondent employer sought reconsideration of a decision certifying the applicant union, alleging that the union's membership evidence was obtained with the support of management officials, contrary to sections 12 and 56 of the Labour Relations Act.

The general manager had initiated the organizing campaign and directed supervisors to assist.

The union subsequently re-signed employees outside the plant to cure the defect.

The Board found that the general manager acted on his own and not in the employer's interests, so the section 12 bar did not apply.

However, given the circumstances of the re-signing and the presence of management, the Board doubted the true wishes of the employees.

The Board revoked the certificate and ordered a representation vote.